Tag Archives: collaboration

Post navigation

There have been many twists and turns in the Brexit story. The latest, has been Theresa’s May’s failed attempt to increase her parliamentary majority and gain a personal mandate for negotiating her own version of Brexit.

However, since the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016, STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) researchers and professionals have consistently voiced their concerns over the potential negative impacts of Brexit, particularly in areas such as funding, collaboration and skills.

Prospect – a union for 50,000 scientists, engineers and technical specialists – has made it clear that they believe:

“Science is an international endeavour and continued free movement of people is vitally important both to the public interest and the wider economy.”

Their research highlights that British participation in prestigious Europe-wide research projects could be under threat, such as the mission to find the ‘oldest ice’ in Antarctica and the European Space Agency’s project to develop the most ambitious satellite Earth observation programme.

The Financial Times also highlights that British researchers have been very successful at winning important grants from the European Research Council. As a result, the UK receives 15.5% of all EU science funding – a disproportionate return on the UK’s 12% contribution to the overall EU budget.

Professor Dr Carsten Welsch, an academic from Liverpool University, underlines how essential EU funding is to his work: “in some years as much as 80% of our funding has been sourced from the EU.”

Universities UK has also investigated the wider economic impacts of EU funding in the UK. In 2016, their research found that EU funding generates more than 19,000 jobs across the UK, adding £1.86 billion to the UK economy. Later research has also shown that international students and their visitors generate £25.8 billion in gross output for the UK economy. In addition, as a single group, they add £690 million to the UK retail industry.

What do the politicians say?

With their ‘Save our Scientists’ campaign, the Liberal Democrats have been outspoken in their support for continued scientific co-operation across Europe. Their 2017 General Election manifesto stated that they would underwrite funding for British partners in EU-funded projects such as Horizon 2020 – the largest ever EU Research and Innovation programme – worth nearly €80 billion in funding. It also promised to protect and raise the science budget by inflation, and stop cuts to medical research.

But the UK government has also made efforts to lessen the concerns of STEM researchers and professionals. Similarly, Chancellor Philip Hammond has guaranteed to underwrite EU funding won by UK organisations through programmes such as Horizon 2020, even if these projects continue after Brexit. On the 17th January, Prime Minister Theresa May outlined her 12 objectives for negotiating the UK’s exit from the EU. Within this speech, she stated that:

“We will welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives, for example in space exploration, clean energy and medical technologies.”

Jo Johnson, Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, has also tried to provide reassurance by emphasising the important role for science and innovation in the government’s industrial strategy. He has highlighted that the strategy includes £229 million of funding for a ‘world class’ materials research centre at the University of Manchester and a centre for excellence for life sciences. In addition, a new funding body will be created – UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) – which will bring together several funding councils to create a ‘loud and powerful’ voice for science.

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has also published a report arguing that positive steps should be taken to ensure UK science plays a significant role in the global economy. One idea put forward by the report is that:

“The UK should offer to host – in partnership with governments and funding bodies from other countries – one or more new, large-scale international research facilities. This would be a bold move to signal the UK’s global standing in science.”

International partners – David Johnston Research + Technology Park

At a recent innovation event in Glasgow, Carol Stewart, Business Development Manager of David Johnston Research and Technology Park, set out the thoughts of researchers and companies based at their innovative research park in Waterloo, Canada. Unsurprisingly, their key concern was restrictions on the free movement of labour, and the impact Brexit might have on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

However, Ms Stewart was positive that there would still be plenty of opportunities, noting that the UK and Canada has a relationship as part of the Commonwealth, and that London will still be regarded as a global technology hub.

Overcoming negative sentiment

One important concern is that there is widespread anecdotal evidence that EU nationals are feeling less welcome. Stories of researchers either leaving positions or citing Brexit as a reason for not taking up posts in the UK are becoming the norm. Anxieties caused by a lack of clarity over the long-term status of EU nationals and the complexities in obtaining permanent residency, can only be damaging to the UK’s reputation for international science. As physicist and TV presenter Professor Brian Cox explains:

“We have spent decades – centuries arguably – building a welcoming and open atmosphere in our universities and, crucially, presenting that image to an increasingly competitive world. We’ve been spectacularly successful; many of the world’s finest researchers and teachers have made the UK their home, in good faith. A few careless words have already damaged our carefully cultivated international reputation, however. I know of few, if any, international academics, from within or outside the EU, who are more comfortable in our country now than they were pre-referendum. This is a recipe for disaster.”

With the latest election results, the UK is likely to go through a period of political instability. It will be important that, regardless of political changes, the UK continues to exercise its role as a leader in science, technology and innovation. That not only means providing funding and facilities for research, but also rebuilding the UK’s reputation as a place where the very best scientists and innovators want to live and work.

Follow us on Twitterto see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read some of our other articles:

Buurtzorg roughly translates from its native Dutch as “neighbourhood care”. The model, used extensively in the Netherlands, has attracted international attention as a novel way to deliver community based nursing programmes. Its positive reputation and recorded successes in areas of Holland are attributed to its innovative use of locally-based and locally-aware nursing teams to deliver high-quality person-centred, but low-cost, care.

Seeking to improve core health outcomes

In the Netherlands, Buurtzorg was designed to engage three key health priorities:

Health promotion

Effective management of conditions (in a community setting)

Disease prevention

It focused particularly on the elderly, those who move regularly between hospital and home, and those with long term, constant care illnesses. It has also been used with patients with progressive illnesses such as dementia, with some nurses within the teams being given training to become dementia specialists where appropriate.

The model includes the following key elements:

Holistic and personalised care – where assessments of need are integrated into and form the foundation of agreed care plans

Mapping networks of informal care, and assessing ways to involve these networks in treatment plans

Identifying other formal carers and organisations who provide care services and coordinate their input

Taking steps to support the client in his/her own environment

Promoting self-care and independence on the part of patients.

A number of studies of pilot sites across the UK and beyond have identified the positives and some challenges of applying the Buurtzorg model in different contexts. Some of these are outlined in the table below.

Applying the model in Scotland

In a Scottish context, the model has been applied in a number of areas, with the initial pilots making way for a wider roll out of adaptations of the model. In March 2017, as part of a wider research project, nurses and management staff from NHS boards across Scotland met in Perth to discuss learning and exchange best practice around how the model could be adapted and further rolled out in the future.

It highlighted the different stages that many Buurtzorg areas were at in their roll out, with some like Aberdeen and the Borders far more established than Argyll, who were at the time only in the earliest stages of their Buurtzorg journey. The research and learning event gave practitioners the opportunity to engage and further cement both formal and informal learning networks, which have been identified as key to the success of the Buurtzorg model both in the UK and elsewhere.

The importance of information sharing and informal learning

Rolling out the model in test sites highlighted the importance of planning and learning, and of creating a strong sense of trust between practitioners and NHS management, but also between the Buurtzorg nurses and their service users and other professionals. This change in mindset regarding ways of working, and a change in the chain of accountability was something, which, according to those practitioners who attended the Perth event, many sites have found to be a significant barrier to effective implementation.

However it was also highlighted that promoting and facilitating the creation of formal and informal learning networks and learning spaces can be an effective way to generate conversation about best practice as well as allaying some fears that may persist regarding working culture and approaches, including partnership working with other agencies and understanding risk in the working environment.

In Scotland, approaches have varied, from encouraging nursing teams to create videos and then post them to an online forum, employing more formal training plans to incorporate multiple agencies and ensure that everyone is “singing from the same hymn sheet”, or holding informal drop-in or open space events where staff are supported in their role and given advice to alleviate and find potential solutions to issues.

Practitioners also highlighted that it is important to provide a space where teams can examine what did not work well, and why. Learning from mistakes can often be as beneficial as learning from good practice, as these can provide insights into issue management and resolution as well as how to implement the programme effectively.

It is also clear from feedback, that while a strong core network of nurses and other community based practitioners is vital to the success of Buurtzorg care models, the back team support is also just as important. Creating efficient and streamlined processes leaves nursing teams free to care for patients and allows them more time to develop and deliver the person-centred care which is a key element of the Buurtzorg model.

Final thoughts

Learning from the experiences of the trial projects in Scotland has provided invaluable insights on how the model can be applied and some of the challenges that can be encountered because of the differing context. This knowledge can then be used to shelter and steer newer projects away from danger areas toward best practice and innovative collaborative working. Applying Buurtzorg in Scotland gives the potential to create and implement new models of holistic person-centred care, where practitioners with local and specialist knowledge interact at a local level with other care providers, join up approaches and create a better care experience for service users.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments health, social and community care are interesting our research team.

As cities realise the need to improve sustainability, many are turning to innovative technologies to address challenges such as traffic congestion and air pollution. Here, the ‘smart agenda’, with its focus on technology and urban infrastructure, overlaps with the ‘sustainability agenda’ – usually associated with energy, waste management, and transport.

In 2015, an international research project – coordinated by the University of Exeter and involving teams from the UK, China, the Netherlands, France, and Germany – was launched to investigative how smart-eco initiatives can be used to promote the growth of the green economy. As part of this work, the report ‘Smart-eco cities in the UK: trends and city profiles 2016’ was published.

Below we’ve highlighted some interesting case studies from this report.

Glasgow

Glasgow’s smart city approach has been described as ‘opportunistic’ (as opposed to strategy-led) by the report’s authors. New initiatives are often linked to creative organisations/individuals and competition funding, such as Future City Glasgow, which was awarded £24 million by the Technology Strategy Board (now Innovate UK).

Nonetheless, this has helped Glasgow become a smart city leader, not just in the UK, but globally.

Almost half of the £24 million Innovate UK funding was spent on the Operations Centre, located in Glasgow’s east end. The new state-of-the-art facility integrates traffic and public safety management systems, and brings together public space CCTV, security for the city council’s museums and art galleries, traffic management and police intelligence. As well as helping the police and emergency services, the centre can prioritise buses through traffic (when there are delays) and has recently supported the Clean Glasgow initiative, a project to tackle local environmental issues, such as littering.

Intelligent street lighting was also a major part of Future City Glasgow. Three sections of the city have been fitted with new lighting: a walkway along the River Clyde; a partly pedestrianised section of Gordon Street; and Merchant City, a popular retail and leisure district. The new lighting includes built-in sensors which provide real-time data on sound levels, air quality, and pedestrian footfall. ‘Dynamic’ lights, which use motion sensors to vary lighting – increasing levels when pedestrians walk by – have also been introduced.

London

London’s smart city programme is linked to the challenges it faces as a leading global city. Its need for continuous growth and remaining competitive has to be balanced with providing infrastructure, services, and effective governance.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) is behind both the strategy, through the Smart London Board, and the practical delivery of various activities. Much of their work focuses on encouraging collaboration between business, the technology sector, and the residents of London. For example, the London Datastore, which includes over 650 governmental (and some non-governmental) data sets, plays an important role in ensuring the city’s data is freely available to all. Visitors can view a wide variety of statistics and data graphics, on areas such as recycling rates, numbers of bicycles hired, and carbon dioxide emission levels by sector.

In 2014, the Smart London District Network was established to explore how technology could be used in four regeneration projects: Croydon; Elephant & Castle; Imperial West; and the London Olympic Park. To support this, the Institute for Sustainability was commissioned to run a competition asking technology innovators to pitch innovative ideas for these projects. Winners of this competition included the company Stickyworld, who created an online platform which supports stakeholder engagement through a virtual environment, and Placemeter, who developed an intelligent online platform which analyses the data taken from video feeds and provides predictive insights.

Manchester

Recently, the City of Manchester Council consolidated their smart city initiatives into the Smarter City Programme. The Smart-eco cities report explains that the programme draws on the city’s 2012 submission to the ‘Future Cities Demonstrator’ competition, focusing on the development of Manchester’s Oxford Road ‘Corridor’ around five main themes:

enhanced low carbon mobility

clean energy generation and distribution

more efficient buildings

integrated logistics and resource management

community and citizen engagement

Manchester’s approach to becoming a smarter city involves a wide range of partners. For instance, Triangulum is a €25m European Commission project involving Manchester and two other cities (Eindhoven and Stavanger) to transform urban areas into ‘smart quarters’.

In Manchester, the council-led project will integrate mobility, energy, and informations and communications technology (ICT) systems into the infrastructure along the Corridor. It will introduce a range of technologies into assets such as the University of Manchester Electrical Grid, with the aim of showing their potential for supplying, storing and using energy more effectively in urban environments. Data visualisation techniques, based on the use of real-time data, will also be developed.

In 2016, Manchester launched CityVerve, a £10 million collaborative project to demonstrate internet of things technologies. The project will involve several smart city initiatives, including:

talkative bus stops, which use digital signage and sensors, to provide information to passengers and provide data to bus operators on the numbers waiting for buses

air quality sensors in the street furniture

‘Community Wellness’ sensors in parks, along school and commuter routes, to encourage exercise

a ‘biometric sensor network’, to help people manage their chronic respiratory conditions

Final thoughts

There is great excitement about the potential for smart city technologies. However, as is highlighted by the smart-eco cities report, many are limited in scale, short term, and based on competition funding. If we want to create sustainable cities, which meets challenges of the future, greater investment will be needed from both public and private sector.

Follow us on Twitterto see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other smart cities articles.

When most people think of public-private sector technology collaboration the word ‘controversy’ isn’t too far behind. High profile failures such as the Home Office’s immigration computer system (which cost the taxpayer £224 million) and NHS Connecting for Health (which cost £9 billion over 10 years), have made both the public and politicians wary of investing in large-scale digital projects.

So, it wasn’t too surprising when the Cabinet Office announced in January that it was conducting a review of government IT contracts.

Why do digital projects fail?

In 2003, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published a report outlining the key reasons why digital projects struggle to meet expectations:

Fast moving technology – technology differs from other projects in that advances are so rapid that technologies can become obsolete by the time a project is complete.

Defining requirements – a study by the British Computing Society found poor management of requirements as the main reason for failure of the Home Office’s immigration system.

Complexity – IT projects can be complex, and it’s not always possible to estimate the full extent of the difficulty of a project.

Oversight – staff can find it difficult to judge the success of project during its development (particularly non-technical staff).

Interoperability – IT projects generally involve different systems. It can be challenging to ensure that these systems interact, particularly if no plan has been developed.

Limited skills – many software developers do not have formal qualifications and there is a shortage of senior developers to undertake projects.

Why should the public-private sector collaborate?

In a recent interview with Business Voice, Stephen Foreshew-Cain, Government Digital Service (GDS) executive director, explained his views on the private sector. He stated:

“I want the private sector to understand that we are open for business and we need suppliers as part of the ecosystem”

In some respects, Mr Foreshew-Cain was addressing his remarks to those involved in the digital sector interested in new opportunities. But he understands that the government cannot achieve digital transformation on its own, not just because of the rapid changes in technology, but also the challenges in recruiting the right skills. For instance, the traditionally long recruitment process in the civil service can act as a barrier when digital skills are in high demand.

He also suggests that ‘insourcing’ (only developing projects within the public sector) is not the way forward, and that government should be tapping into the UK’s world leading digital sector.

Digital Marketplace

The GDS has created the Digital Marketplace, an online platform which aims to make procurement as simple and fast as possible for the public sector and suppliers. In his interview, Mr Foreshew-Cain explained that the marketplace allows the public sector bodies to access the skills and services they need, whilst providing digital innovators with an opportunity to grow and develop their ideas, in a way that directly benefits the government.

He also highlighted the success of the Digital Marketplace, with over £1 billion in contracts being awarded, including over half to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Key factors for successful collaboration

Rob Lamb, Cloud Business Director at the EMC multinational data storage corporation, has outlined a number of actions that the UK must take to benefit from digital technology. These include:

Information – It’s important that technology is more than just websites, and that data is used to provide meaningful insights to business and the public sector.

Clustering experts – traditional organisations and digital innovators need to be given opportunities to collaborate to solve problems and share good practice.

Government role – public sector organisations should embrace new technologies, open up as many data sets as possible, as well as introduce a framework for data analytics (so customers can be assured that data is being managed appropriately).

Innovative practice – Civtech

In July 2016, the Scottish Government announced the launch of Civtech, a pilot project which encourages entrepreneurs, start-ups and small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) to develop innovative solutions to public sector problems.

Unconventionally, the tender does not include pre-determined solutions, instead opting to pose six open questions, known as ‘challenges’, and inviting participants to provide answers. These include:

How can we get health and social care data and analysis to the widest possible audience?

How can we make our data publications more accessible and appealing?

How can we use technology to design smart roads?

The project involves a number of stages, including the ‘exploration stage’ where sponsoring public sector organisations work with teams to develop their solutions. At each stage funding is available, with companies keeping their own intellectual property and equity.

This approach may provide a viable alternative to the more traditional methods of procuring digital services.

Final thoughts

Public-private sector collaborative projects fail for a number of reasons. However, if the public sector is to progress with digital transformation, it must allow the private sector to play active role in the ‘eco-system’. The real debate going forward should focus on how we address challenges and provide the environment for successful public-private sector collaboration.

Follow us on Twitterto see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read:

Following the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies in 2010, 39 local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) were established in England by 2012. Each was designed to represent a functional economic area and steer growth strategically in local communities. These business-led partnerships between the private sector and local authorities are central to government plans for local economic growth.

According to a new report from the National Audit Office (NAO), the role and remit of LEPs has expanded both significantly and rapidly but there are concerns over whether they have the capacity and capability to deliver.

Rapid growth

Since their inception, LEPs have rapidly developed from new start-up organisations to bidders and delivery managers for substantial amounts of national and European funding initiatives to strategic leaders of their local economies.

Between 2010 and 2015 total central government funding directed through LEPs was approximately £1.5 billion. Through the Local Growth Fund, £12 billion will be available from 2015-16 to 2020-21. Growth Deals were agreed with each of the 39 LEPs in 2014, through which £6.3 billion of the Local Growth Fund was allocated. With a further £1 billion allocated in January 2015, the total to date is £7.3 billion. LEPs estimate that the Growth Deals combined will create up to 419,500 jobs and 224,300 housing units.

On the whole, LEPs have been perceived positively and are well established as the main agencies for promoting local growth.

Development has been anything but uniform, however, with a varied pace of evolution. Considering the differing levels of size, urbanisation, population, and existing infrastructure within the LEPs, this is no surprise.

The most advanced LEPs have been identified as those with a history of collaborative working. Greater Manchester leads the way, having already been given powers over skills, welfare and transport, and to be given new powers over the criminal justice system as announced in the 2016 Budget. Greater Manchester has been working in partnership since the 1980s through its local government association, and formally through its Combined Authority since 2011.

And according to a recent Localis report, including London, there are at least a third of LEPs based in and around urban areas which are or could soon be in a position to take on greater powers, with 2017/18 a feasible timeline for them to assume greater powers.

Uncertainty

Despite their rapid development and increased responsibility for substantial amounts of government funding, concerns have been raised over LEPs’ power, resources and accountability.

The NAO report found that only 5% of LEPs agreed that resources available to them are enough to meet government expectations. Additionally, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that they had sufficiently skilled staff.

A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses in 2014 found that: there is a disparity in the levels of funding and capacity across LEPs; a lack of clarity on the remit, purpose and function of LEPs from government has resulted in widespread misunderstanding and friction in practice; and inconsistencies in performance monitoring across LEPs is hampering accountability to local stakeholders and hindering assessment of LEP performance nationally.

Further recent analysis argues that their role and influence are being compromised by a fragmented and changing landscape of economic development governance and the absence of any longer term vision and plan for their evolution.

Given this lack of long term vision and strategy, the fundamental tensions yet to be resolved and their institutional shortfalls and limitations in authority, accountability, capability and resources, the analysis concludes that many LEPs will struggle to exercise substantive influence on economic development at the local level.

Indeed, LEPs reported to the NAO that they were uncertain about their place in the wider devolved landscape. LEPs were also concerned that the government had not made clear their role in economic planning and development as devolution progresses.

Further concerns were raised over funding in terms of pressure to spend their allocation within the year at the risk of not receiving future funding, which could potentially lead to LEPs not funding projects most suited to long-term economic development. And the sustainability of reliance on local authority support at a time of reduced local government funding was another worry.

Future direction

Going forward, the NAO report recommends that the government:

clarifies how LEPs fit with other bodies to which it is devolving power and spending

distributes Local Growth Funding to LEPs in a form that will give them medium to long-term funding flexibility, subject to performance, to reduce risk of funds being spent on projects that LEPs do not regard as offering the best value for money

sets out specific quantifiable objectives and performance indicators for the success of Growth Deals

ensures that there is sufficient local capacity within LEPs to deliver Growth Deals by taking a more explicit and consistent account of the financial sustainability of local authority partners

uses its approach to monitoring Growth Deals as an opportunity to standardise output metrics for future local growth initiatives, allowing for comparative performance assessment and reducing reporting burdens

tests the implementation of local assurance frameworks before confirming future funding allocations, and works with LEPs to ensure that the required standards of governance and transparency are being met.

Only time will tell whether the government expectation of LEPs to deliver Growth Deals effectively and sustainably will become a reality.

In 2012, a Housing Technology report found that almost half of the UK’s adult population who do not use the internet live in social housing. The report’s contributors (including the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and Peabody housing association) argued that digital inclusion gives tenants more choice and control and better access to lower-cost, better services.

For housing associations, the impact of developing a digital strategy to engage with their tenants can be substantial. The report estimated that social housing landlords could achieve annual savings of £340m in communications costs.

The benefits of digital inclusion for social housing landlords and their tenants is explored further in the latest “In focus” briefing from The Knowledge Exchange.

Social housing: the digital revolution

Increasingly, social housing providers and tenants are connecting online through media such as Facebook, Twitter and online chat services. Other housing associations are offering interactive features on their websites, enabling tenants to check their rent accounts or to book appointments.

But, as the Housing Technology report showed, significant numbers of people don’t have online access. For some, it’s a matter of poor broadband coverage, while others have concerns about access costs and data security.

Our briefing includes examples of how social tenants and their housing providers can benefit from greater digital inclusion, and highlights ways in which the barriers to going online may be overcome.

Reading Room and Catalyst:

Among the examples of best practice featured in the briefing is a case study of a collaboration between Reading Room – a digital consultancy which joined the Idox Group in 2015 – and Catalyst, one of the leading housing associations in London and the South East.

Reading Room has worked closely with Catalyst and its customers to create a strategic framework for the housing association’s digital development. Among the themes emerging from this framework are projects for:

Optimising Catalyst’s web platforms for mobile devices and making them more user friendly

Developing a plan to implement new online services

Training and developing internal teams with digital best practices, including content creation and customer service through social media

Engaging the business and creating a team of digital champions

Embarking on an innovation programme towards building smart homes

Once the work is complete, Catalyst customers will be able to report and track issues directly through a new web platform, while contractors can view available jobs and location data.

Future plans

Further down the line, Reading Room and Catalyst are working on plans to use the Internet of Things to create smarter buildings with sensors that can detect changes before they become problems, notify the repair company and update the customer automatically.

The collaboration between Reading Room and Catalyst highlights the exciting potential of technology for improving communications between social housing providers and their tenants, and for encouraging more people to reap the benefits of going online.

Members of the Idox Information Service can obtain access to the full text of the In focus briefing on digital inclusion and social housing here

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

Mark Evans is the Director and Professor of Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra, Australia. In this interview with the Knowledge Exchange, Mark talks about how his research is used in policy development.

How can policy makers/practitioners benefit from developing their knowledge and use of evidence?

The more I’ve got involved in the practice of decision making and developing policies, the more I’ve seen the value of evidence. To make evidence effective you have to win the war of ideas. Politicians have their own sources of evidence – internal policy, preferred sources, media etc. – and ministers are enveloped by a whole range of sources. Good evidence has to find a way of being heard and cutting through this.

Civil servants are very skilled in committees and running processes and programmes effectively. They are good at technical solutions and responses, but not adaptive developmental issues, which require time. Their ability to engage and get to the hardest to reach groups within policy, was one of the key findings of our study. How do you cost programmes which take a long time and investment, and target groups experiencing significant marginalisation?

When people talk to you about evidence, research or knowledge, what do they most frequently raise as issues?

Real time evidence – which we can only do through open data. In Australia this is difficult as we don’t have national datasets to enable large scale analysis or comparison. The UK is far ahead of us in terms of data and its use in evidence. In the UK there is no shortage of data, but it needs to be more dynamic, whereas in Australia it’s not sufficient. Resources such as Euromonitor don’t exist in Australia, so we can’t compare or contrast issues or monitor impact. Spatial modelling is very influential due to this lack of data – simulated models for different areas are necessary as we don’t have the real data.

What are the mistakes people make when it comes to developing knowledge, things which you really need to avoid?

Not understanding the political dynamics leads to failure. Not understanding that knowledge is power, and assuming that what makes good evidence is what makes good understanding, are big traps to fall into. Just because you develop good evidence doesn’t mean it will be accepted.

The most important first step is agreement around values and principles. The classic example in Australia would be the original agreement on the child support scheme: ‘absent fathers should contribute’ was the fundamental principle and getting that agreement led to the introduction of the scheme.

What are the main issues facing policy makers in the next 5 years? What evidence will they need?

This may be peculiar to Australia, but the personalisation of politics and policies, is now impacting. The ‘Obama technologies’ approach of targeting messages to voters and the targeting of resources to particular groups, is on the rise, so policy is becoming individually relevant. If we know what people want, we can then move resources to target their needs. The evidence to help policy makers to do this successfully (i.e. generally the use of new technologies, big data, social media, getting real time data on preferences) is going to grow in importance and be in demand.

Key policy issues are ageing, the cost of care and pensions, funding the social security gaps and climate change. There is also a rise in the development of preventative health and generally the funding of higher education.

How do you think people will be carrying out evidence, research and knowledge development in five years’ time?

Technology, everyone always says technology! Normally there is a lag between the technology and its realisation in public policy – this was certainly the case up until recently.

Largely because there is an association between technology and productivity, there is an inverse relationship between use the use of consultants and productivity. There is only a productivity gain in the public sector in the digitisation of services and the consolidation of the use of technologies.

There is a presumption of localism in policy, but actually technology development is leading to more centralisation. This can be a positive thing for the availability and reliability of data, but negative for understanding very local issues.

If you had a ‘best-kept secret’ about research, evidence and knowledge, what would you recommend, and why?

An approach which is useful in thinking about the context of evidence and policymaking is to ask “I am in my ‘cockpit’ (desk, computer, books, advisors, people I know), but what is in your cockpit?” We’ve found that the more experienced policy officers all had mentors, all had experts, they knew about data, and could do policy relatively quickly. This contrasted with younger policy makers (the ‘Wikipedia policy makers’). Fast-track policy making is being done (ministers deciding and the policy maker sent off to write the evidence base) but if their ‘cockpit’ isn’t complete then the policy making can have holes.

Finally, what led you to a role developing knowledge institutions and focusing on research and evidence development?

In 1999, I established the international development unit at York, looking at post-war recovery study. It was just before Afghanistan and Iraq so we became the ‘go to’ place for it, and started to look at the interface between evidence and politics. Many were disregarding the evidence – it’s really all about jobs and poverty; people move towards radicalisation when they have no hope no future.

I came to Australia for the better relationship between government and academia, through the National School of Government. I have been able to do things in Australia that I wouldn’t have been able to do in UK, bringing together theory and practice. The UK is good at collaboration, and I have taken that to Australia aiming to be the ‘collaborator of first resort’.

“Innovation is the lifeblood of any society or any economy” Julian Beer, Birmingham City University

Innovation districts, first coined by Bruce Katz and colleagues at the Brookings Institute in the US, are a recent trend in urban planning that is on the rise across the globe.

They represent a move away from the traditional corporate campuses, socially isolated in out-of-town sites, consisting of clusters of innovative research facilities in working areas that are also liveable, accessible by foot or by bike, and have good transport links.

The move towards these innovation hubs reflects the growing importance of the geography of innovation to urban areas.

The Sheffield City Region’s Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District (AMID) Partnership was selected as the winner of the £15,000 Award, the proposals of which were highlighted as an example of how developing industry clusters can deliver economic growth, employment and community regeneration. They also called for the AMID Partnership to be considered as a model for regional development.

The AMID Partnership consists of The University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, Harworth Estates, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield City Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

This integrated approach utilises newly devolved powers and funding for the greatest economic and social impact.

The role of The University of Sheffield and its Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) in driving productivity improvements and innovation has been recognised in three independent reports.

Another notable innovation district in the UK is Corridor Manchester. Developed over the past 10 years, it is a partnership between the city council, local universities and regional hospitals that supports nearly 12% of the city’s workforce and generates £3bn GVA per annum. The recently opened £61m National Graphene Institute, which is to explore new commercial uses for graphene technology, has been described as “the perfect example of innovation-district potential.”

Growth in collaboration

Such university-industry partnerships are becoming increasingly common as a way for higher education institutions (HEIs) to enhance their research, create new research and development opportunities and increase revenues.

The most recent Higher education – business and community interaction survey shows a continuing increase in the exchange of knowledge between UK HEIs and the public, private and third sectors. Between 2012-13 and 2013-2014 these interactions increased in volume by 10.1%, the value of which was £300 million – increasing from £3.6 billion to £3.9 billion.

At a time of reduced government funding, it should be no surprise that such collaboration is continuing to increase.

A recent Universities UK report highlighting the extensive economic value of universities states that they have an important part in supporting businesses to drive product, process and service innovation. And in terms of policy implications, it argues that:

“any policy aiming to promote the long-term economic success of the UK needs to have universities at its heart, recognising the breadth, complexity and significance of their contribution and the need for stable, continued support to enable further impact.”

Barriers to innovation

Despite the wide recognition of the value of such partnerships, it has been argued that the UK’s fiscal policy of austerity acts as a barrier to industry innovation.

According to Simon Marginson, professor of international higher education at the UCL Institute for Education:

Nevertheless, it would seem likely that the rise in innovation districts will continue due to the organic nature of their growth, as highlighted by Katz and colleagues. Economic and demographic forces will continue to change the way people live and work.

Brookings has called for local decision-makers, global companies and financial institutions, and government to ‘unleash’, ‘embrace’, ‘support and accelerate’ innovation districts. The result: “a step toward building a stronger, more sustainable and more inclusive economy.”

This is just the approach of the Community Health Champion model, developed by Altogether Better, which has demonstrated not only the positive impact on health but the social value of such an approach.

What are health champions?

Health Champions are volunteers from all walks of life who are provided with accredited training and support so they can undertake health promotion activities within their communities to reduce health inequalities and improve the health of the local population.

The Community Health Champion role began as a five year Big Lottery Funded programme (Wellbeing 1) in 2008. Over 18,000 Health Champions were recruited, trained and supported between 2008 and 2012, reaching over 105,000 people.

Through a combination of their training and own personal experiences, these volunteers empower and encourage people within their families, communities and workplaces to take up healthy activities, create groups to meet local needs and can signpost people to relevant support and services.

Challenges

While Wellbeing 1 succeeded in reaching many people in need, the programme also raised two specific challenges: in almost all cases, the work being done was invisible to the NHS; and securing ongoing funding to continue the support was difficult.

Peer support was later identified as the most appropriate way of trying to connect communities with health services.

Following this recognition and the success of the original model, further lottery funding was awarded to develop the Champion model and use it to engage champions, communities and health services (Wellbeing 2).

Co-production of health and wellbeing outcomes

The model was applied to health services specifically with the aim of addressing the apparent disconnect between the NHS and community-based services. It helps connect both patients with support in their communities and professional practices with those communities.

Many citizens have volunteered in different ways and in different settings. These include:

Practice Health Champions working closely with their General Practice to create new ways for patients to access non-clinical support

Youth Health Champions where children and young people are recruited, trained and supported to help young people more actively engage with and influence their own and their community’s health

Pregnancy and early years Health Champions who are interested in giving children a better start

Health Champions working within a specialist, hospital-based NHS service

Senior Health Champions who engage with older people, offering a complimentary approach to more formal programmes

Community-based health improvement initiatives such as this could help to strengthen community-professional partnerships and cross-collaboration among health, social and other services. And this in turn could lead to a reduction in health inequalities.

86% of champions and 94% of participants in the programme reported increased levels of confidence and well-being;

87% of champions and 94% of participants in the programme acquired significant new knowledge related to health and well-being;

98% of champions and 99% of participants in the programme reported increased involvement in social activities and social groups;

95% of practice staff involved with the programme would recommend it and wish to continue.

Other benefits included reduced social isolation, increased levels of exercise/healthy eating and feeling physically better. One champion reported “this has helped me more than any medication might.”

Success stories include the work of a cycle champion who has improved her own health and wellbeing, encouraged over 70 other people to improve theirs through taking up cycling, provided cycle training to over 50 people in 6 community groups and provided specific detailed help to 5 people.

Other successes have involved volunteers setting up football training, providing support to women with mental health issues, providing advice and support to ethnic minorities and providing advice on healthy eating.

In terms of monetary value, an analysis of the social return on investment (SROI) of a series of Altogether Better project beneficiaries found a positive SROI of between £0.79 and £112.42 for every pound invested, highlighting the potential value of these initiatives to funders.

Final thoughts

At a time of increasing demands on health services and with the relentless squeeze on public sector resources, perhaps the move towards greater community empowerment and collaboration across sectors is the right one. After all, as I’m sure we’d all agree, prevention is better than cure.

If you liked this blog post, you might also want to read Heather’s earlier post on social prescribing

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

“Singapore leads in all dimensions of digital readiness and scores high in economic competitiveness, citizen engagement as well as public sector productivity.”

These are the words of Ng Wee Wei, Managing Director (Health & Public Service) at Accenture, in Singapore. He made this statement on the day Singapore was ranked number one for digital government, in a comparative study carried out by Accenture.

However, this is just one of the many accolades won by Singapore. Other notable successes have included:

In my latest article on digital government around the world, we’ll take a look at how this island city state has become a global leader and what can be learned from their experience.

E-government policy development

In the 1970s the Singapore government realised that they were unable to compete with the larger labour-intensive economies. As a result, they identified ICT as a way of improving economic performance, particularly through increasing labour productivity, making processes leaner and more efficient, and delivering better services to customers.

In 1982, the government launched the Civil Service Computerization Program (CSCP). The programme’s main objective was to enhance public administration through the effective use of ICT. This involved developing new business processes, automating work functions and reducing paperwork for greater internal operational efficiencies. In essence, it provided the foundation for subsequent e-services.

Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s the government started to develop the programme. For instance, the National Information Technology Plan (NITP) was introduced to support cross agency collaboration. This led to the creation of “TradeNet”, an application that enabled exchange of documents between the private sector and various government agencies.

As Singapore entered the new millennium, the e-Government Action Plan (2000-2003) (eGAP 1) was launched. This was the first of what the government now calls the ‘eGov masterplans’. It set out the aim that:

“All government services that can be delivered electronically shall be delivered through electronic means”.

The second e-Government Action Plan (2003-2006) emphasised improving the customer experience, connecting citizens with each other and fostering collaboration between government agencies.

The third, iGov2010 Masterplan (2006-2010), had a strong focus on integrating government services, making sure that processes cut across agencies. In addition, increasing the e-engagement of citizens was also a key objective, particularly in fostering greater bonds within different communities, such as young people.

Most recently, the government introduced the eGov2015 Masterplan (2011-2015), which outlined the vision of collaboration between the government, the private sector and the people through digital technologies. There was also a recognition that the government should act as a platform provider to encourage greater co-creation of new e-services.

Key features of eGov Singapore

SingPass

Singpass (Singapore Personal Access) was introduced in March 2003 and enables citizens access to government e-services, from over 60 government agencies via a single platform. In total, there are 3.3 million registered users, with transactions increasing from 4.5 million in 2003 to 57 million in 2013. The system provides a high level of security for users, as well as removing the need for agencies to develop and administer their own.

In July 2015, an Enhanced SingPass was introduced. It included improvements such as the option to customise the SingPass ID, mobile-friendly features, and stronger security capabilities. However, the updates proved to be so popular that on their initial release the website was temporarily inaccessible due to high traffic.

data.gov.sg

data.gov.sg was launched in June 2011 and is Singapore’s first stop portal for publicly available government data, as well as applications developed using government data. The portal has increased to over 8,700 datasets (covering a range of themes, from business and the economy to housing and urban planning), with contributions coming from over 60 government agencies.

The government has introduced schemes such as ideas4apps Challenge and Harnessing Data for Value Creation Call-for-Collaboration (CFC) to encourage the creative use of government data. One example from the portal’s showcase is FixMyStreet, an app which allows citizens to report, view or discuss issues with public facilities, such as litter and broken lifts.

eCitizen

eCitizen was introduced in 1999 and is the first-stop portal for government information and services. When the portal was first introduced it pioneered the concept of cross-agency, citizen-centric government services, where users transact with ‘one government’ (the ability to access several government services via the one website).

In 2013, the eCitizen portal was recognised for “Outstanding Achievement” in the Government category of the Interactive Media Awards. It beat 137 other nominees to the award, which evaluates entries based on: design; content; feature; functionality; usability; and standards compliance. Since the portal’s redesign in 2012, there has been a 65% increase in visitors, with significant improvement in the success rates of searches (up to three times).

What key lessons can countries learn from Singapore?

In the book, National Strategies to Harness Information Technology: Seeking Transformation in Singapore, Finland, the Philippines, and South Africa, Jeannie Chua outlines the key lessons that other countries can take from the Singaporean experience. This includes:

Stable political leadership

Singapore has had the same political party in charge of its Cabinet since 1959. This high level of political stability is rare, unlikely to occur in most countries and not necessarily desirable for democracy. However, it does highlight the importance of some level of continuity for progressing a digital agenda, whether that’s within the same government or across different government administrations.

Industry collaboration – getting the private sector to do more

The use of government intervention to create opportunities for the private sector and providing effective working partnerships has been very successful in Singapore. This ‘catalyst’ role has encouraged innovation and supported the creation of a successful ICT industry.

The willingness to innovate and take risks

Singapore’s willingness to adopt technologies at an early stage has proved to be a success. For instance, the National Library of Singapore adopted RFID (radio-frequency identification) technology, the use of radio waves to automatically identify people or objects, even though it was relatively untested at the time.

Final thoughts

Singapore has been successful at creating a strong foundation for e-government and is deserving of all its accolades. The success has been built on a combination of factors including political willingness and economic policies. However, what has also been important is the country’s ability to learn from each stage in its development.

As the country moves forward, key issues such as cybercrime and privacy concerns will have to be addressed. In 2014, there was a security breach involving 1,560 Singpass accounts. A year later, the government introduced a new central government agency for cybersecurity operations. It’s hoped that this central agency will be able to bolster the country’s critical ICT infrastructure.

It’s these measures, and its ability to act swiftly, that will hold Singapore in good stead for the future. This is maybe the real lesson for those looking to emulate Singapore’s e-government success.

Enjoy this article? Read our other recent blogs relating to the digital economy:

IDOX Plc announced on 8 October 2015 that it had acquired the UK trading arm of Reading Room Ltd. Reading Room, founded in 1996, is a digital consultancy business with a focus on delivering websites and digital services that enable its customers to make critical shifts into digital business and client engagement. It has an international reputation for its award winning and innovative approaches to strategic consultancy, design, and technical delivery.